Once again I was probably one of the few people that would notice how much Economics is in the famous movie Scarface. Do not worry it slowly dies away as Scarface begins his descent to his demise.

At one point, he is negotiating with a producer of cocaine and they are not just price but also quantity. The producer needs Scarface to be a steady distributor for him so that he can expand production. This shows both mutually beneficial trade and how vertical industries work. Why you have to go to Best Buy to buy a CD and not just the CD manufacturer. They even work out the probability that 1 out of every 9 moves get lost or arrested.

Next, is when Scarface is sitting in his bath watching T.V. the issue of legalizing drugs comes up the new anchor disagrees. Surprisingly, Scarface supports the legalization because he probably thinks he can make just as much money and not have to hide it. This was a point in with Scarface did economic calculation. He thought to himself the costs that he has to incur from hiding his money and operation compared to the taxes. He makes a funny public choice argument and says they will never legalize it because then they can look like they are the good guys fighting the bad guys. This will obviously help them get reelected but Scarface says that they are the bad guys.

My favorite part of the movie was also when he was sitting in the tub, he is mad about how much he is being charged by the bank to keep his money hidden. His wife gets upset that he is so stingy and complains about penny’s. She then proceeds to tell him that he would have been nicer if someone gave him the money. His partner concludes the same thing. This is an interesting topic. The boss is always seen as doing the least amount of work and he is "getting paid way to much." But what people do not account for his responsibility.

To read in the last paragraph more read "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality" by Ludwig Von Mises.

If anyone else noticed economics in this movie, let me know… If not you will have a new way of looking at this movie when you watch it.

Eric Thompson is the owner of TGSCOM, a Wisconsin based firearm company that sells mainly through the internet. You may not know who Thompson is, but every living American knows two men he recently sold firearms to……Steven Kazmierczak (the gunman from NIU) and Seung-Hui Cho (the gunman from the VT massacre). Thompson sold weaponry to both gunman through legal means, and is in no way directly responsible for the shootings at either tragedy.

In a controversial use of the freedom to speak, Thomson recently appeared on the VT campus to speak on behalf of supporting concealed firearms. Eric Thompson was speaking by the invitation of the student organization Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. The VT-SCCC brought Thompson to speak as a gesture of understanding, beyond the emotion that many Blacksburg residence initially felt after the shootings. The organization was hosting an event to debate the issue of concealed firearms, and whether they should be permitted on campus.

The Blacksburg community is mostly in support of concealed-carry on, as this is considered a productive deterrent against future mass-shootings. However, the presence of the businessman was opposed by many, including University spokesman Larry Hincker. Thompson even faced-off against a protester, who felt that the presence of additional firearms would not make the campus more safe.

As controversial as this issue is, I feel it is detrimental to discuss. The two arguments here are both seeking to reduce shootings through very different means. One party suggests restricting the sale of firearms. In this case, there will be fewer weapons to be used in shootings. The alternative suggests allowing greater freedom in the carrying of firearms in public locations. This party argues that the additional firearms carried by responsible citizens will deter shootings and reduce the casualties of ones that do occur.

I think this debate should be considered carefully by everyone, and so I will return later with my opinion. For now, I would like to hear yours…

Unlike most people, I just got around to watching the famous movie Scarface. Probably also unlike most people I was surprised with how much economic thought was put in the script.

First, at the very beginning of the movie he is being interviewed. The cop is mad at him for having been in jail in Cuba. He explains to the cop, what that basically a just man is in jail in an unjust world. Scarface makes an interesting point, that in a world where you are watched all the time, told what to do and think, and work for no money, you cannot stand around and do nothing about it. Which is exactly what communism was…

Second, when Scarface is negotiating with dealers, after doing them a favor and killing the guy in Freedomland, to make money. They try to pay Scarface and his buddy too low of a wage, so Scarface rejects because of how high the risk of killing that guy was. The dealers say we could have gotten him killed for cheaper and Scarface who understands Capitalism said "Why didn’t you?"

This is important when people talk about workers being exploited by their employers. It doesn’t happen because even in a business in where you can be killed for saying no, you can say no.

Third, when the Lopez is discussing with his colleague his view of Scarface, they call him a peasant but the upside is that a peasant will break his back for you. This is the work ethic of immigrants today. Often when you are not dependant on the state or believe that you are better than others, you will work hard. Many times now managers will say they would take 100 immigrant workers over 200 non-immigrant workers.

This shows you that immigration can be good for the country because most immigrants are not going to partake in illegal activities.

Two independant sources located in London and the Middle East have confirmed that 5 captured Britons are being held in Iran. The sources claim that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is responsable for the detention of the prisoners. The Revolutionary Guard is the highest enforcement entity in the nation of Iran, and strictly adheres to government officials.

This news is quite troubling, but not entirely surprising. American intelligence officials have long claimed the involvement of Iranian forces in Iraq. The recent capture of the 5 British men occured in Iraq, far from the juristiction of Iraninan authority. If these statements are proved correct, this would confirm the existence of Iraninan operations within Iraq. In addition, it would give the US tremendous political legitimacy in asserting additional restrictions on the fundamentalist nation….possibly even military action to assure adherence.

I’m interested to see how this plays out. No one really wants a confrontation between the US and Iran…..this Iraq debacle has cost us all enough already. But actions like these could result in some real problems…

Starting Monday the tax rebates are going out. They are going out earlier to help with food and gas prices. Here is what the AP is saying about it:

"Democrats said they were glad the rebate checks were about to go out, but suggested that multinational oil companies were not among the businesses the stimulus package was originally designed to help."

I find this so funny is because from an economic standpoint this is a bad idea and now even the populist are upset. Boohoo…

Of course this isn’t really going to do anything. The idea is to try to increase consumer spending. The problem is where is the money coming from?

Either they are creating inflation or borrowing the money.

Picture is of 1920’s German Inflation and how worthless their money became…

If it is inflation then what happens if everyone wakes up with an extra zero on the end of their bank account. Nothing the prices put a zero on the end. No one is better off, actually if you compute in the menu costs then it is a negative effect. (Those are the costs of having to change the prices.)

If they are borrowing it causes many things but obviously eventually they will have to tax people to pay it back.

There is a list of about 100 more ways I could tell you how the fiscal stimulus is bad… but that is a start….

Supposedly there is not enough farmers switching from other things to corn because of ethanol subsidies but it would be interesting if anyone can find the exact information. I will always believe farm subsidies are bad regardless.